Swiss government: file-sharing no big deal, some downloading still OK

The government of Switzerland has released a new report arguing that …

A new report by the Swiss government argues that unauthorized file sharing is not a significant problem, and that existing Swiss law—which allows for downloading copyrighted content for personal use—is sufficient to protect copyright holders. It considers and rejects three proposed changes: a French-style "three strikes" law, Internet filtering, and a mandatory collective licensing regime that would impose a fee on all Internet users that allowed unlimited file-sharing.

The report was written at the request of the Swiss legislature, which had expressed concerned that rampant copyright infringement endangered Swiss culture. In a 13-page document, Switzerland's Federal Council—the nation's seven-member executive branch—downplayed those concerns.

Drawing on statistics from the Netherlands, which is similar to Switzerland in terms of demographics, Internet infrastructure, and copyright law, the report estimates that a third of those over the age of 15 in Switzerland share copyrighted works without permission. That may be because, despite the best efforts of copyright holders and government officials, the majority of Swiss Internet users can't distinguish between legitimate and illegal sources for copyrighted material.

Yet the report argues that the spread of file-sharing is no great cause for concern. It argues that consumers spend a roughly constant share of their disposable income on entertainment expenses. Money saved on buying CDs and DVDs are instead spent on "concerts, movies, and merchandising."

The report argues that piracy is only a significant concern for "large foreign production companies," and that these large companies need to adapt to new consumer behavior rather than seeking further legislative changes. And, the report says, "fears that these changes have a negative impact on the Swiss cultural creativity are unfounded."

The report considers and rejects three approaches to file sharing that have been pursued in other countries.

First, it considers the "three strikes" approach of France's HADOPI. The council argued that HADOPI is incompatible with a right to free speech and expressed concern that such a regime gives too much power to private copyright holders.

Second, the council rejects calls for Internet filtering, arguing that such laws would threaten privacy and could degrade Internet performance.

Finally, the council considers a compulsory licensing regime, in which every Swiss Internet user would be charged a flat fee for the right to unlimited file sharing. This proposal is rejected for two reasons. First, the existing tax on blank media is unpopular with voters, who suspect that most of the money is not making it to artists. And second, the government expresses concerns that laws allowing unlimited sharing would interfere with international treaty obligations.

For some odd reason, I read that as "Software piracy is OK because people will spend money going to concerts". As in "Software piracy is OK because people will have enough money left over to do something bit more cultural than blasting pixels."

For some odd reason, I read that as "Software piracy is OK because people will spend money going to concerts". As in "Software piracy is OK because people will have enough money left over to do something bit more cultural than blasting pixels."

For some odd reason, I read that as "Software piracy is OK because people will spend money going to concerts". As in "Software piracy is OK because people will have enough money left over to do something bit more cultural than blasting pixels."

Begs the question: Is going to a Justin Beiber concert cultural?

Does it matter? Standing up, going outside and interacting with their fellow citizens directly has been shown routinely to be good for your state of mind. I don't think even the boy-band-du-jour can derail that.

While this is nice, its interesting that it comes from a country known as a tax haven for Formula 1 drivers and other rich people. Motor racing is illegal in Switzerland, and if you don't 'work' within the country you qualify for generous tax breaks.

And second, the government expresses concerns that laws allowing unlimited sharing would interfere with international treaty obligations.

Knowing the scumbags (like the music industry) the thinking probably went like this:Get a cover charge from the whole countryCity international treaty obligations to say that unlimited downloading wont workKeep the cover charge anyway - they wont feel those few extra euros but multiply that by the countries internet population and thats hundreds of extra millions to sue 12 year olds and dead people with.

And second, the government expresses concerns that laws allowing unlimited sharing would interfere with international treaty obligations.

Knowing the scumbags (like the music industry) the thinking probably went like this:Get a cover charge from the whole countryCity international treaty obligations to say that unlimited downloading wont workKeep the cover charge anyway - they wont feel those few extra euros but multiply that by the countries internet population and thats hundreds of extra millions to sue 12 year olds and dead people with.

I don't think any of the music industry is smart enough to come up with a plan like this (and they wouldn't have any sort of legal/moral way to defend such a plan). The entire basis of their current argument is that people are 'stealing' music. Unlimited sharing paid for by a country is essentially like paying the MAFIA protection monies.

All they really want is a record player prices (you must buy the whole album, there is a physical cost to music) in a digital world.

In know way am i a lover of the music and movie industries in the way they behave but this report basically says as long as it doesn't affect our companies who cares? isn't that a bit short sighted and a little bit i alright jack?

lets fire nuclear missiles at Switzerland then as it wont affect our country? ridiculous concept but the same basic couldn't give a stuff attitude

While this is nice, its interesting that it comes from a country known as a tax haven for Formula 1 drivers and other rich people. Motor racing is illegal in Switzerland, and if you don't 'work' within the country you qualify for generous tax breaks.

Let's just say it seems people think differently over there...

About taxing rich foreigners: The thinking is that is it impossible for the tax authority to asses and verify the right amount of taxes as all the income is abroad. So they don't even try. You work out a deal with the tax authority. One additional argument is that it is preferable to have, say Schumacher, pay 500k/year in taxes, than try to tax him $5M, because then he would go to Monaco, Dubai or Singapure instead and you get nothing. This system does work work quite well, also because there is not a flood of rich foreigners either. Many, like Schumi, integrate well too, like him playing with the local Soccer club.

In know way am i a lover of the music and movie industries in the way they behave but this report basically says as long as it doesn't affect our companies who cares? isn't that a bit short sighted and a little bit i alright jack?

lets fire nuclear missiles at Switzerland then as it wont affect our country? ridiculous concept but the same basic couldn't give a stuff attitude

That is generally the attitude the rest of the world gets from the USA, so what is your problem again?

Myself I do know quite well when I file is legit or not, but it is not always obvious, especially to the 'dumb user'. One mayor problem in Switzerland is that it is a small, fragmented market. Don't forget there are only 5M Swiss-German speaking and 2M French speaking Swiss. This is about the size of a bigger agglomeration in the US. That also means many legal sources often simply don't work. Amazon, iTunes, etc. have a very limited choice. Quite often, when I try buying a couple of music tracks and get the 'not available in your country' message a couple of times I find it via emule or torrent.

So Indie Developers can't sell their games into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share the games instead of purchasing them. Independent musicians cannot sell their works into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their music. Authors can't sell their books in electronic format in the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their books. Any work that anyone creates in a digital format will have problems selling that work in the Swiss market since it can be freely shared. Why is this a good thing?

While music executive are surely greedy and bad for the industry, that does not invalidate their rights to control what they finance within reason. What makes Switzerland's law better than those of the US (or others) is not that they stick it to the Big Bad Corporations, it's that they follow two basic copyright principles:1) Copyright violation is NOT the same as theft, as not product is removed nor a sale impeded by anyone other than the potential customer themselves. Thus, copyright should not be handled in in court as theft (small claims civil court would be ok for America; I doubt you could constitutionally strip a right-holder of the right to sue at all, but $80000 a song is certainly ludicrous).2) There is no need to panic. We don't need to "protect" a thriving industry, file-sharing is not the end of the world, and in many cases it is beneficial.

In know way am i a lover of the music and movie industries in the way they behave but this report basically says as long as it doesn't affect our companies who cares? isn't that a bit short sighted and a little bit i alright jack?

Technically file sharing doesn't affect American companies either (unless you think that the MP/RIAA could somehow be making more than they currently do).

The report argues that piracy is only a significant concern for "large foreign production companies," and that these large companies need to adapt to new consumer behavior rather than seeking further legislative changes.

This is the most important part of the report for two reasons.

1. The Swiss argue that its "not their problem", essentially saying that they don't care what problems legal downloading causes for Hollywood - lost revenues, who cares its not our industry! You expect countries like China to take this attitude, but not the Swiss.

2. Telling the content companies they need to get with the times - long overdue. There is still a lot to do though - schemes like Ultraviolet and Keychest are better than forcing consumer to illegally rip and encode movies, but are still way too consumer unfriendly to get much traction.

Our government (Holland) decided the same thing last week or so. But the Swiss actually have a good reason for it. Here it's just considered not important enough as a crime to go after all those people who sometimes download something for their own use.

And second, the government expresses concerns that laws allowing unlimited sharing would interfere with international treaty obligations.

Knowing the scumbags (like the music industry) the thinking probably went like this:Get a cover charge from the whole countryCity international treaty obligations to say that unlimited downloading wont workKeep the cover charge anyway - they wont feel those few extra euros but multiply that by the countries internet population and thats hundreds of extra millions to sue 12 year olds and dead people with.

I don't think any of the music industry is smart enough to come up with a plan like this (and they wouldn't have any sort of legal/moral way to defend such a plan).

They are not longer worried about any legal / moral way of defending themselves - they threw that out of the window when they went after college kids, single mothers, the sick, the dying, the elderly, the homeless, preteens and even the dead.They then shot it, raped it and threw it in a ditch with constant copyright extensions and their support for COICA/PIPA/SOPA.

Look at the articles of RIANZ/IRMA etc (international branches of the recording industry) going after people for music they don't even own or are doubtful of owning. Of going after people to buy a licence even if they dont play industry music or hire industry musicians.OR suing a barbershop for having a radio -> same for a mechanic.OR suing a old lady for singing in her own shop while working (public performance according to them).

These bastards will try to milk any system they can, if they can - legality and morality don't even come into the picture unless they are taken to task.

So Indie Developers can't sell their games into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share the games instead of purchasing them. Independent musicians cannot sell their works into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their music. Authors can't sell their books in electronic format in the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their books. Any work that anyone creates in a digital format will have problems selling that work in the Swiss market since it can be freely shared. Why is this a good thing?

That's why not a single company makes a profit off of Linux or sells Open Source software, right?

That's why companies that give out their software for free, like that "Mozilla" or that "Google" company, inevitably fail within days and fade into obscurity, right?

"Swatch Group SA will cut supplies of watch movements to competitors to force them to invest in their own production and choke off exports to Asia where they may be used to make fake Swiss products".

Seems hypocritical somehow to be so relaxed about ripping off American IP.

Token tangible vs intangible comment. Also, they're being relaxed about a lot of IP worldwide, not just American. China's complete oblivion to IP law is also not helping this situation, although I don't think it makes sense.

Swatch put themselves in a strange and stupid position with ownership of ETA and Valjoux. Those are the two largest producers of automatic movements in the industry, and Swatch both uses those movements in their own brands and sells them to companies that compete directly with Swatch's brands. It's like Ford making engines and selling them to GM. Unfortunately, to cut off supply is highly anti-competitive and drives costs up across the board except for Swatch companies.

This whole mess could be resolved if they'd just do their damn homework before they sell a pile of movements to some random buyer and never validate whether that person works for a legit watchmaker or not. I can't have a lot of sympathy when Swatch sells a movement to someone who uses it to make a knock-off Omega, hurting Swatch in the process.

So Indie Developers can't sell their games into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share the games instead of purchasing them. Independent musicians cannot sell their works into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their music. Authors can't sell their books in electronic format in the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their books. Any work that anyone creates in a digital format will have problems selling that work in the Swiss market since it can be freely shared. Why is this a good thing?

That is not how it is. Downloading something is not considered a copyright violation, sharing is. Very similar to marijuana, where smoking it is tolerated and dealing actively prosecuted.

The government report makes several arguments:- The current legal framework is sufficient to protect the local, Swiss cultural scene (mostly 'indie'). - The people who complain are the (foreign) multinationals marketing (foreign) stuff.- The international legislative environment is not clear, the world has not yet found a common ground.Ergo sum: Let's see how things develop and fix it when we find it broken.

Unlike the US, the Swiss have a very direct democracy. Everything is pretty much decided by direct vote referndum (these things happen very often, not once in 2 or 4 years), and you only need 100,000 (2-3% of the elecorate) people to sign a petition to have an issue raised on a referndum.

So basically, The People would never, ever vote on some bullshit legislation like France's 3 strikes rules or SOPA.

So the Federal Council would, logically, never, ever start pushing for this type of legislation.

For the people complaining about the "it's not our problem that foreign companies don't adapt":

1. As it has been said, modern streaming or downloading services are non-existent in Switzerland. Spotify just started a month ago. Also it takes something of about a year for a movie to get to Switzerland. If the big foreign companies did care about the Swiss market, they would do something about this. I think it is only fair not to take into account the foreign companies' interest when they don't take the Swiss interest into account.

2. The Swiss government responded to a question asking if something should be done to protect the Swiss cultural creation. Which is why the government focused on the Swiss interest.

3. Remember that Switzerland is a semi-direct democracy, meaning that the people really have most of the power. If they pass a law that the people do not agree with, there will be voting on it and the odds that it passes are low. The government has to take that into consideration. (Which is probably the thing I love the most about Switzerland).

So Indie Developers can't sell their games into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share the games instead of purchasing them. Independent musicians cannot sell their works into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their music. Authors can't sell their books in electronic format in the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their books. Any work that anyone creates in a digital format will have problems selling that work in the Swiss market since it can be freely shared. Why is this a good thing?

Give me a break, dude. Seriously.

Yes, because it's legal to share, it's impossible that purchases will be made? How moronic. Even during events where Indie publishers allow me to name my own price, I generally pay MORE than I would for a major producer.

Even if NO ONE purchased ANYTHING, their population is only 7.6 million. That includes babies and cane-wielders who likely wouldn't be purchasing that sort of thing anyhow.

So Indie Developers can't sell their games into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share the games instead of purchasing them. Independent musicians cannot sell their works into the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their music. Authors can't sell their books in electronic format in the Swiss market because everyone is free to share their books. Any work that anyone creates in a digital format will have problems selling that work in the Swiss market since it can be freely shared. Why is this a good thing?

Because DRM doesn't work. Indie bundles have shown that the developers make more money off donations than they do off of trying to sell a product for $4.99.

Look at the money Valve makes indies when they do their bundles.

Second is that some of this material is not available in Switzerland because of IP restrictions, etc. There is no loss of sales because there was never a market there to begin with.

The same applies in the US with music sales. I torrent a band that I would never have any interest in buying. I listen to the album a few times and decide that I like it. I then go to a concert and buy their CD while there, knowing that they will get most of the profit not the record company. The band made more money by me 'stealing' their work than by chance I would buy it.

If I don't like the band no loss, I would never have purchased their product anyway.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.